Sol Stern, longtime scourge of the New York City school system, recently caused a stir in the education reform movement by denouncing school vouchers. Oh, he says he still supports them — except that he doesn’t think they’ll ever produce improvements in public schools, and they’re a political loser, and they have a host of other problems as well. With friends like this, who needs teachers’ unions?

Ostentatiously switching sides and denouncing your former allies as ideologues who want to silence your brave dissent is a great way to get fawning MSM profiles. But none of this changes the facts, which are against Stern.

Unfortunately, there’s no space here to refute everything in Stern’s long article. In fact, a complete point-by-point demolition of Stern’s claims would take almost 3,000 words. How do I know? Because Jay Greene wrote one, and that’s how long it is.

But let’s look at Stern’s two most important claims: that school vouchers don’t improve public schools, and that they’re not politically successful.

This research, using rigorous statistical analysis to ensure accuracy, consistently finds that public schools exposed to vouchers improve in response to the healthy competitive incentives they provide. Sometimes the improvements are dramatic — Florida’s voucher program produced huge gains in the state’s very worst public schools.

The only exception is in Washington, DC’s voucher program. And that’s exactly what you’d expect, because the DC program actually bribes the public schools to make up for the kids who leave, undermining the program’s competitive incentives. Since DC is the only voucher program built this way, that’s hardly an indictment of vouchers.

You’d never know about this research from Stern’s article. Instead, Stern just points out that schools in voucher cities like Milwaukee remain generally bad. But Milwaukee’s voucher program isn’t evenly spread across the city. Due to income eligibility requirements, it’s concentrated in some neighborhoods. The public schools actually exposed to vouchers are getting better.

And what about the claim that vouchers are a political loser? Stern writes that “voucher programs for poor children … have hit a wall.” (emphasis added) He observes that there haven’t been new “voucher programs for poor children” (emphasis added) since the Supreme Court gave its blessing to vouchers in 2002.

If you read Stern’s article without knowing the facts, you’d think there had been only one new voucher program since 2002 — he mentions only the DC program. What Stern doesn’t tell you is that there have been no other new voucher programs “for poor children” because vouchers are now so successful that the programs enacted since 2002 are no longer restricted to poor children. They’re broader in scope. Another factor is the rise of tax-credit scholarship programs, which accomplish the same result as vouchers but are administered differently.

Counting all school choice programs that send kids to private schools using public funds, since 2002 the number of programs has grown from 11 to 22, and the number of participants has grown from about 90,000 to almost 190,000.

More important, the political success of school choice is accelerating. In just the last three years, nine programs have been enacted and ten existing programs have been expanded.

School choice is also crossing the aisle. Democratic legislators, tired of sacrificing children’s lives to the teachers’ unions — or under pressure from angry constituents — are increasingly voting for choice. Five new programs were enacted in 2006 in states with Democratic governors or legislative chambers. Even Barack Obama had to make friendly noises about vouchers when campaigning in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, other education strategies like pedagogical reform and accountability testing are stalled or in retreat. The “Massachusetts miracle” idolized by Stern is rapidly being dismantled by a new governor.

That doesn’t happen to voucher programs, because the families and constituencies that benefit from vouchers defend the programs. Ohio’s extremely anti-voucher governor, after riding into office in a landslide, has nonetheless been unable to touch any of the state’s three voucher programs.

Greg Forster is a senior fellow at the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.

Greg Forster is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Educational Choice.

Click here to view the 17 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

17 Comments, 17 Threads

1.
Javelin

How convenient, the person works for a pro voucher group and uses their own studies to back up the claim. It’s also good to have a scapegoat to kick around, the dreaded teacher’s unions, those godless Marxists who want to teach homosexual acts in grammar school.

After attending 3 different High Schools in Beaverton Oregon (due to boundary changes) I think the voucher system is a good idea. There is a big difference between some schools and the attitude towards students and learning. At least between my 3 different high schools there was. I think competition will give the teachers motivation to help kids more.
Apparently the Teachers Unions arent quite happy with these vouchers. I am not sure why and new to the issue. Maybe somebody could enlighten me.

I don’t understand the teachers unions either. They seem to do so little to represent teachers’ interests, such as empowering teachers within the classroom to be able to choose the books and teaching methods that they find work. They also oppose home schooling although home schoolers are proof that small classes and teachers empowered to meet the needs of their students are effective.
I believe in subsidiarity, the principle that those closest to the situation can best decide the appropriate action. Education will be improved, not by so-called experts who don’t spend so much as an hour a week in a classroom, by empowering those who work with children to meet the needs of children. What teacher ever asked to be required to teach to a test, or to have her lessons arbitrarily interrupted by announcements, or not to be able to extend the time for a topic her kids are interested in because some are going to be pulled out for some other program?
I am a home schooling granny. Every teacher should have the freedom I have.

Wrong forum(s) Javelin. Your ability to concoct strawmen is legendary, just not pertinent.

Back to the topic. I really hope this doesn’t become yet another thread arguing merits on perceived outcomes. I’d just like to know what right the State has forcing anyone to participate in its statism.

So why not a simple opt-out? I mean, aside from the fact it returns constitutionally sound choice to the individual at the expense of government.

The teachers’ unions have set a high priority on traditional union concerns: job protection for current employees in union shops, expanding the number of employees in union shops, establishing a rigid pay scale in union shops, and workplace rules in union shops minimizing what tasks employees can be asked to do. Vouchers threaten the first two of those priorities – if students move from the public sector (the union shop) to the private sector (non-union shop), teacher employment will do so as well. When employment shifts from union to non-union shops, the unions lose. And there’s not much hope of unionizing the private schools – which is a good thing, since the collective bargaining agreements in public schools are by far the major obstacle to reform there.

Ms. Roddy, congratulations on home schooling your grandchild! Home schooling does show very good results for those who choose it. I only wish there were some way we could conduct a controlled study on it, as we have done many times for voucher students in private schools.

I support school choice precisely because I agree with you that those closest to a situation know best how to handle that situation – and parents are always going to be much closer to a child than anyone else, and also more highly motivated to find the right situation for that child. That said, it’s also important to remember that Teacher A is only “close to the sitation” in this sense for Teacher A’s particular classroom. Thus, the mere fact that a person has taught in a classroom doesn’t make that person necessarily any better at knowing what’s good for other students in other classrooms. If you want to find out whether a given policy works well in general, rather than in one particular class, you’re going to have to conduct an empirical study.

Take small classes, for example. It’s plausible that the positive impact of home schooling is at least partly attributable to the class size being one to one (or a few to one). On the other hand, the empirical evidence is pretty clear that reducing class sizes less drastically than one to one, say reducing it from 30 to one to 15 to one, is not a promising strategy. The results to justify the enormous expense just have not been there.

Javelin: Reading comprehension there buddy. You missed the 2 studies by Harvard, the one by Princeton, Cornell, and The U.S. Govt. Yes, Greene’s study is also in there, but the fact that he was involved in one study in no way negates the results of the other ones.

The fact is, School Vouchers WORK. They work EVERY TIME they are implemented properly. (The D.C. one is quite obviously an attempt to make school vouchers look bad by undermining the system. That way they can go back to the old socialistic system once the sabotaged voucher system fails in DC. Not entirely surprising given the corrupticrats running DC government.)

What is sick is that people like you are actually OPPOSED to allowing parents the opportunity to educate their children the way THEY want. You are more concerned with maintaining centralized control over the system than you are in educating the children. SICK SICK SICK.

I have two special-needs children. We do NOT have a voucher setup here in my area (Western New York state) Let me tell you, getting the school system to actually HELP my children by providing the much-needed special services is like fighting a grizzly bear. If we had vouchers here, I could just send my kids to one of the specialty schools that have experts in Developmentally Disabled children. Experts that can help my kids grow up to lead semi-normal lives. (You know, like hold down a job, rent an apartment or own a home, and pay taxes. Basically become productive and happy members of society.)

If people like you have their way, my kids will grow up to be more disabled than they are now, and end up in a state-run home somewhere after I die, to be neglected by uncaring social-workers. All so the Mother State can have power and keep Liberals in fancy cars and big houses.

Greg, our reliance on tests is one of the problems because of the limitations of what can be determined by a multiple choice test. Other forms of testing, such as those that would involve observation by an examiner, are too expensive to be practical.
If I am working with a group of up to 12, maybe 15, children I can tell by the dynamics of the group if they are with me and learning or not. If most of the children are enjoying the activity, they tend to bring the rest along with them. I can tell when I’ve lost them and it’s time to change gears.
I understand that about half of all educational dollars are spent on staff and stuff outside the classroom. Many of those people are attempting to prove that learning is going on but they are not contributing to the learning. We could put them into the classrooms without increasing costs.
I agree that vouchers empowering parents would improve education. Empowering teachers would also. Parents should be able to shop for the school that best serves their children. Teachers should be able to shop for the school most fulfilling to them.
Little kids want to learn as they demonstrated by learning to walk, talk, and ride a bike. Unschoolers learn to read because they want to (with parental help as they ask for it).
Teachers want to teach; that’s why they go into it.
NCLB demonstrates loss of faith in both children and teachers, attempting to force something better served by interest, passion, and freedom than by coercion: learning.
Being limited to what can be proven by cheap multiple choice tests is a terrible handicap.
A free marketplace does not rely on tests. It doesn’t need to.

I agree that families should be empowered to choose the right education for their children, and that tests don’t measure everything we care about in education.

But most parents do want their children’s performance measured with tests. They may not rely on that as the sole source of information, but most parents prefer to have that as one source of information. That’s why the overwhelming majority of private schools choose to use standardized tests – because most parents demand it.

Let me be clear: private schools shouldn’t be required to use tests to participate in school choice programs, because testing does affect the educational environment, and a sizeable minority of parents believe that their children will learn better if they’re not tested. It’s always better to trust parents than to trust some one-size-fits-all policy, so those parents should be empowered to choose a private school that doesn’t test if that’s what they think is best for their children.

Rather, my point is that the use of tests should be parent-driven. The governing body of each school or school system, including the public school system, should determine for itself whether to test or not, and then parents should choose the schools that are best for their children. In that environment, I think you would still see quite a lot of testing, but it would be serving the children’s interests.

“Vikki Reyes has had it with Locke High, the school her daughters attend in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles. She walked in on class one day and recalls “the place was just like a zoo!” Students had taken control, while the teacher sat quietly with a book.

Frank Wells has also had it with Locke High. When he became principal he says gangs ruled the campus. He tried to turn things around but ran into a “brick wall” of resistance from the school district and teachers union.

Locke seemed destined to languish in high crime and low test scores until Wells, Reyes, and many reform-minded teachers joined with a maverick named Steve Barr in an attempt to break free from the status quo. Their battle is just one example of the charter school education revolt that’s erupting across the nation.”

Zach: I think you missed the very first comment, or forgot it after reading the many very perceptive comments that followed. Tim is replying to javelin’s comment that vouchers are some sort of a plot by those, apparently Mr Foster included, who believe or characterize the public school establishment as promoting homosexuality as part of their godless commie agenda.

It is becoming typical for voucher supporters to spend time blaming teacher unions or public schools in order to make a scapegoat to sacrifice on their altar of skewed statistics. It often destroys the credibility they so wish for because they come across with such petty attacks. They may be awash in data and statistics when discussing vouchers but they are found wanting when empirical evidence is needed about teacher unions.

I think E.D. Hirsch makes the clearest and sanest statement about school choice when he says “….the real way is to improve all the schools, and then you have real choice, obviously.”